How do we genuinely demonstrate caring for each other in ways that are real, authentic, and robust? How can we do this even better?
Photo Credit: Unicorn Playing by http://flickr.com/photos/kt/
Archives for April 2007
Are you holding employee engagement together with duct tape?
Don’t let engagment die with all the other projects, initiatives, and work screaming for your attention. Made to Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath, offers 6 powerful principles to give engagement gumption, tenacity, and longevity.
Make your approach simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional and use stories. The next 6 Monday Morning Percolators will profile each of these principles applied to employee engagement.
The Heaths offer the acronym SUCCESs to remember the principles. Here is a quick outline of the SUCCESsfull principles you will learn to make employee engagement stick:
- Simplicity. Strip employee engagement to the core and make sure you focus on the most robust method.
- Unexpectedness. Capture your employee’s attention…and hold it by making an element of employee engagement unexpected.
- Concreteness. Make engagement concrete so employees understand it and remember it.
- Credibility. Make sure employee engagement is credible for all involved.
- Emotional. Remember that emotions will influence motions so employee engagment must become a positive emotional approach.
- Stories. Leverage stories to inspire employees to work with full engagement.
The authors practice what they preach with a stickey cover – a picture of duct tape stretched across the book jacket. The duct tape is raised from the cover to feel like real duct tape. You will be tempted to try and pull it off but what you really want to pull off is applying the principles to employee engagement.
Next Monday: Employee Engagement Made Simple.
Photo Credit: Duct Tape Neck Tie by http://flickr.com/photos/jasoneppink/
Can employee engagement lead to employee disengagement?
I felt sad reading how the Saskatchewan labour relations board put a halt to employee engagement activities for SGI, an insurance company in Saskatchewan. The sadness was that the very concept that could enrich the workplace for all had become a source of dispute between the organization’s management and union.
Here are a few snippets from the Regina Leader-Post article on the halting of SGI’s president’s employee engagement team (PEET):
The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (LRB) had ordered a temporary halt to all activities conducted by SGI’s president’s employee engagement team (PEET), including handing out bonuses under its employee recognition program.
The Saskatchewan Insurance Office and Professional Employees’ Union (COPE) Local 397 filed a complaint with the LRB in January alleging SGI had committed unfair labour practices by negotiating directly with employees through the establishment of an employee engagement committee in April 2006, which was composed of in-scope and out-of-scope employees.
The union claimed the committee gathered employee-related information, made recommendations and took steps to implement changes which related to the terms and conditions of employment of in-scope employees.
The union also complained that the employer had undermined the collective bargaining process by promoting the initiatives of the committee, by unilaterally paying bonuses to employees without the involvement or knowledge of the union and by failing or refusing to bargain these matters with the union.
SGI denied that it had committed an unfair labour practice through negotiating directly with in-scope employees by way of the president’s employee engagement team, the primary objective of which was to increase employee job satisfaction and engagement in the workplace.
I am not close enough to this situation to understand the full extent of the issues involved. In addition, it is not my intention to judge either party in the dispute, I imagine there is validity to both sides on this issue. Rather, I want to express my dismay and grief that employee engagement – something I see so positively -became an issue that probably contributed to employee disengagement.
Engagement must be for all!
This article points out the need to ensure that there is mutual purpose for everyone involved with employee engagement initiatives. For PEET’s sake and the employee’s experience of work, I hope this does not set the sun on engagement for management, union, and the employees in this company. I wish them well as they sort this out and I hope the sun will rise again on employee engagement – making the workplace a better place for all.
- How do your employee engagement initiatives fit within the wider context of the organization?
- How would you avoid having something similar occur at your workplace?
Photo Credit: Crescent Moon Sunset by http://flickr.com/photos/fortphoto/
Eddi Reader performs a powerful song questioning untapped strength on the TED website.
I have chosen this song as the theme song for this strength based leadership blog. Her powerful voice weaves with the lyrics to create a song of strength, energy, and caring. Click here to watch and listen to this very powerful and inspiring song.
Here are a few powerful questions embedded in the lyrics:
…what’s the use in strength and muscle if you only push and shove?
…its not what you’ve been given its what you do with what you’ve got
…its not how big your share is it is what you share
…what’s the use of two good ears if you can’t hear those you love?
I love the TED (Technology Education Design) website. I would rank it in the top 3 sites on the Internet. I encourage you to visit the site as it has an eclectic array of presentations from previous TED conferences.
Go catch the sun.
According to Shepell-fgi research group: Money not only isn’t everything – it isn’t the main thing when it comes to motivating employees.
How people are treated and how they view their managers have almost twice the impact on motivation and results compared to pay and benefits. Money does not appear to enhance productivity.
Rob Phillips, CEO of Shepell-fgi stated:
We all like some parts of our job more than others. But when overall engagement is low and when your staff prefer to not come in to work or aren’t performing at their full capacity, it costs the organization money – up to an average cost of $1.80 million for a company of 1,000 employees.
Employees want to have trust in senior management, be asked for their input, and have a clear say in decisions that affect their work.
Money is the employee engagement paradox: money is not a key driver of employee engagement for the employee yet it costs an organization great deals of money to have disengaged employees.
- Ensure you spend time not just money with employees. Work is as much about making sense as it is about making cents.
Photo Credit: The snail and the coin (Economy goes slow) by http://flickr.com/photos/mclau/